Speaking of War Crimesby Steven A. Hass
www.dissidentvoice.org
November 18, 2004
First Published in
Newzmaniac

Kevin
Sites is a freelance journalist on assignment with NBC News in Iraq, and he
is currently acting as the imbedded journalist covering the fighting in
Fallujah. His
video report, which was released this week and shows a U.S. Marine
killing a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque, has started a
global wildfire.

Not
surprisingly, those who are sympathetic to George W. Bush's war in Iraq have
chosen to sidestep the issue at hand, and instead are screaming for Sites'
head on a sacrificial platter. Unfortunately, deflecting the attention onto
Sites does not erase what his camera recorded: a war crime, by any
interpretation of the established laws of war. Sites did what the mainstream
American media won't do, and simply recorded the uncensored story at hand
(as competent journalists do). Judging by their reaction, Bush sympathizers
don't appreciate "no spin" that has no spin.

Earlier that day in Fallujah, a
Marine unit had captured the mosque and the group of wounded Iraqi militia
inside the mosque. These Marines had finished treating the wounds of the
Iraqis, and then left them to be collected by another Marine group,
presumably for transfer to a prisoner collection area. When the second group
of Marines arrived, the video shows them walking around the wounded Iraqis,
who were lying on the floor of the mosque. A Marine is heard saying that one
of the wounded Iraqis was pretending to be dead. In response, a fellow
Marine is seen aiming his rifle point-blank at the Iraqi, shooting him in
the head, and casually remarking, "Well, he's dead now."

No yelling, no screaming, no fighting, no chaos inside the mosque. The
wounded Iraqis were lying on the floor, obviously unarmed. Bush
sympathizers, in trying to justify what is shown on the video, speak of
previous (and verifiable) incidents when Iraqi militia had boobytrapped
their dead comrades, or incidents when wounded Iraqis had laid in wait for
any American soldier to get close enough to be shot. These incidents have,
in fact, happened. But the Bush sympathizers typically lose sight of what
their argument's alternative says. By their argument, fearing such an
incident in this specific case would be saying that the U.S. Marines, when
leaving prisoners for another group to collect, are not intelligent enough
to absolutely ensure that all weapons of any type have been taken from the
wounded Iraqis. This argument has the first group of Marines treating the
wounded Iraqis, and then just walking away, saying, "Gee, I sure hope they
don't have any weapons".

With a generous portion of latitude, let's assume that this second group of
Marines just happened upon the mosque and its group of wounded Iraqis,
rather than having been sent there to collect the prisoners. If that were
the case, these Marines have no business being in combat (or they have a
death wish). As shown on the video, they are not storming the mosque in a
battle, there are no shots fired, they are not attacking the mosque in any
semblance of guerilla warfare tactics. They simply walk into the mosque.
Obviously, they were sent there, and equally obvious by their lack of
tactics is that they knew what to expect inside the mosque (and it wasn't a
firefight).

Another argument being used in an attempt to justify the killing of this
Iraqi prisoner is that a war is stressful, and this Marine may have been
under extreme stress at the time. I would like to take this opportunity to
personally congratulate this Marine on his exemplary command of combat
stress, as the video shows what appears to be an extremely calm and composed
person shooting this Iraqi. There is not even a hint of stress in the entire
incident, nor in the situation as a whole. But combat stress is different
from the stress of everyday civilian life, right? It would be easy right now
to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, and to say that I have
no idea what combat stress is like. Unfortunately, I do know. I wish I
didn't.

The predictable backlash from Bush sympathizers is aimed at Kevin Sites,
rather than the Marine who did the killing. They say that Sites is "aiding
the enemy". They say he is no better than "the terrorists". Pray tell, how
in the world does a journalist aid the enemy by reporting the uncensored
news? Are we supposed to believe that "the enemy" had no idea that American
troops were capable of this type of incident? I guess we're supposed to
believe that Iraqis in Fallujah haven't heard yet about the torture at Abu
Ghraib. Does uncensored news really aid the enemy? Only if the enemy is a
large group of Americans who have become accustomed to whitewashed
spin-cycle "news"; a healthy dose of uncensored news is the very aid that
they need.

Don't bother calling me unpatriotic or un-American. When I checked last, the
American military was to be exemplified by their adherence to the laws of
war, regardless of the enemy's lack thereof. I've been in combat -- have
you? I know the Rules of Engagement -- do you? I know what the Geneva
Convention says -- do you? I don't want the next video to be of Iraqi
militia killing unarmed and wounded American prisoners, excusing it away by
citing "combat stress".....do you? The more this incident is justified, the
more permission is given for the same treatment of wounded American
prisoners. I hope you can justify that.

Steven A. Hass
edits Newzmaniac, where this article first appeared. He can be reached at:
desert_vet@msn.com.